BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:July 2, 2012 |Bill No:AB |
| |1939 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair
Bill No: AB 1939Author:Pan
As Amended: June 19, 2012Fiscal Yes
SUBJECT: Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses.
SUMMARY: Creates a pilot project in specified counties which would
require pet dealers, and others as specified, to submit a report once
a month to the city or county responsible for licensing dogs with
information regarding dog sales and adoptions; sunsets the pilot
project provisions as of January 1, 2018; and, allows licensing
agencies to issue puppy licenses, as defined.
Existing law:
1)Authorizes cities and counties to issue dog licenses and to comply
with and specify other requirements regarding the regulation and
licensing of dogs within their territorial limits.
(Food and Agriculture Code (FAC), Division 14. Regulation and
Licensing of Dogs §§ 30501 - 31683).
2)Provides that any dog license tag which is issued by any city and
county or city constitutes compliance with all of the provisions
regarding the regulation and licensing of dogs if it is issued
pursuant to an ordinance which does all of the following: (FAC §
30502)
a) Substantially complies with all provisions regarding the
regulation and licensing of dogs.
b) Provides for the wearing of the license tag upon the collar of
the dog.
c) Provides for the keeping of a record which shall establish the
AB 1939
Page 2
identity of the person that owns or harbors the dog.
3)Declares it unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep any dog
over the age of four months, or to permit such a dog which is owned,
harbored, or controlled by him to run at large, unless the dog has
attached to its neck or leg a substantial collar as specified.
(FAC § 30951)
4)Requires that in a designated rabies areas every dog owner, after
his or her dog attains the age of four months, shall no less than
once every two years secure a license for the dog as provided by
ordinance of the responsible city, city and county, or county.
(Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 121690)
5)Prohibits a public animal control agency, animal or humane shelter,
or a rescue group, as defined, from selling or giving away to a new
owner any dog that has not been spayed or neutered, except as
specified. (FAC § 30503)
6)Provides that whenever a dog license is issued, if a certificate is
presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed
or neutered, the tag shall be issued for one-half or less of the fee
required for a dog. (FAC § 30525, § 30804.5; Government Code (GC)
§ 38792)
7)Authorizes a board of supervisors to provide for the issuance of
serially numbered metallic dog licenses Ýdog license tag]. (FAC §
30801)
8)Authorizes the board of supervisors or animal control department to
authorize veterinarians to issue the licenses to owners of dogs who
apply for one. (FAC § 30801)
9)Specifies that licenses shall not exceed a period of two years,
unless the person to whom the license is to be issued possesses a
dog that has attained the age of 12 months or older, and that has
been vaccinated against rabies, chooses a license period as
established by the board of supervisors of up to one, two, or three
years. (FAC § 30801; GC § 38792)
10)Provides that the fee for issuance of the dog license tag is fifty
cents ($0.50). The board of supervisors may, however, increase the
fee. (FAC § 30804)
11)Authorizes the legislative body of a city to impose and collect a
license fee for a period not to exceed two years and not exceeding
AB 1939
Page 3
the cost of services relating to dogs. (GC § 38792)
12)Defines "dog breeder" or "breeder" as a person, firm, partnership,
corporation, or other association that has sold, transferred, or
given away all or part of three or more litters of 20 or more dogs
during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the
premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other
association. (HSC § 122045)
13)Defines "pet dealer" as a person engaging in the business of
selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales
of dogs and cats is required to possess a permit pursuant to
§ 6019 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. This definition does not
apply to breeders of dogs, nor to any person, firm, partnership,
corporation, or other association, that breeds or rears dogs on the
premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other
association, that has sold, transferred, or given away fewer than 50
dogs in the preceding year. (HSC § 122125 et seq., or the
"Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act")
14)Defines "purchaser" as a person who purchases a dog or cat from a
pet dealer without the intent to resell the animal. (Id.)
15)Provides that whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates
a new program or higher level of service on any local government,
the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse that
local government for the costs of the program or increased level of
service unless legislation defines a new crime or changing an
existing definition of a crime. (California Constitution, Article
XIIIB § 6)
16)Provides that the Commission on State Mandates shall not find costs
mandated by the state in any claim submitted by a local agency or
school district if the commission finds that the statute created a
new crime or infraction, eliminated a crime or infraction, or
changed the penalty for a crime or infraction, but only for that
portion of the statute relating directly to the enforcement of the
crime or infraction. (GC § 17556)
This bill:
1)States the intent of the Legislature to encourage anyone
transferring ownership of a dog to advise the new owner that all
dogs four months of age or older must be licensed under state law
and for all veterinarians to advise their clients to license all of
the clients' dogs that are four months of age or older.
AB 1939
Page 4
2)Provides that the following requirements for reporting of specified
information regarding the sale or adoption of a dog shall apply to
the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, and
Santa Clara, including all local jurisdictions within those
counties:
a) Requires a pet dealer, humane society, rescue group, society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or pet dealer, as
defined, to submit once a month, 30 days after the close of
business for the previous month, a report to the local
governmental entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the
city or county.
b) Requires that the report include the name, address, and
telephone number of the person who receives the dog, and include
descriptions about the dog, and requires that the report not be
used, distributed, or released for any purpose, unless as
specified.
c) Requires the reporting entity to retain copies of the report
for 12 months, and specifies that a report is not required in any
month that a dog was not adopted or sold.
d) Prohibits the information in the report from being used,
distributed or released for any purpose except as specified and
to ensure compliance with existing state and local law, including
applicable licensing requirements and regulations.
e) Provides that a violation of the reporting requirements is
punishable by a civil fine, as determined by the local
jurisdiction, and shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50) for the
first offense and one hundred dollars ($100) for each subsequent
offense.
f) Provides that a rescue group that places fewer than 20 dogs in
a calendar year shall be excluded from the reporting
requirements.
g) Allows a local governmental entity to provide notice to a
person who receives a dog that was adopted or sold regarding the
laws requiring the person to obtain a license for the dog.
h) Allows a local governmental entity to notify a different local
governmental entity that is responsible for licensing dogs in the
jurisdiction in which the person resides, that the person has
AB 1939
Page 5
adopted or purchased a dog, if that person does not reside within
the jurisdiction of the local governmental entity that is
providing the notice.
i) Defines a "rescue group" as a for-profit or not-for-profit
entity, or a collaboration of individuals with at least one of
its purposes being the sale or placement of dogs that have been
removed from a public animal control agency or shelter or society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane
shelter, or that have been previously owned by any person other
than the original breeder of that dog.
3)Allows any other county to enact a local ordinance implementing a
program consistent with the requirements as specified in Item # 2),
above.
4)Sunsets the reporting requirement provisions of Item # 2), above, as
of January 1, 2018.
5)Provides that if a certificate is presented from a licensed
veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered, then the dog
license tag shall be issued one-half or less of the fee required for
a dog.
6)Defines "puppy" to mean any dog under the age of 12 months of age.
7)Authorizes a licensing entity to issue a "puppy license" for a puppy
that is six months of age or less Ý0 to 6 months], and that the
following shall apply:
a) A puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one year
of age;
b) A puppy license may be issued with or without an anti-rabies
vaccination;
8)Provides that a puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches
five months of age if the owner has not provided acceptable proof,
on or before that date, to the entity that issued the license that
the puppy has received an anti-rabies vaccination, and specifies the
following:
a) If the puppy license expires because of lack of acceptable
proof, that the owner is not eligible to obtain a second puppy
license; or,
AB 1939
Page 6
b) If the owner has provided the issuing agency with satisfactory
evidence of the anti-rabies vaccination, the puppy license shall
expire when the puppy reaches one year of age.
9)Provides, upon expiration of a puppy license Ý12 months], the owner
of the puppy shall obtain a dog license tag for a dog that has been
spayed or neutered and the fee shall be the same as is contained in
existing law, which provides for a fee of fifty cents ($0.50) unless
the fee is increased by the board of supervisors;
a) Provides, upon expiration of a puppy license, if the puppy has
not been spayed or neutered, the owner of the puppy shall obtain
a dog license tag subject to the regular fee for a dog that has
not been spayed or neutered;
b) Provides that the fee for a puppy license is the same fee
permitted for a dog that has been spayed or neutered which as
specified in Item # 9), above.
10)Provides for the responsible city, county, or city and county to
specify the means by which the dog owner is required to provide
proof that his/her dog has been spayed or neutered, including, but
not limited to, electronic transmission or facsimile.
11)Declares that no reimbursement is required because the act creates
a new crime or infraction to local agencies or school districts
under Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution and
GOV § 17556.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to Assembly Committee on Appropriations
analysis dated May 9, 2012, the fiscal impact is negligible.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. The Concerned Dog Owners of California and the Humane
Society of the United States are the Co-Sponsors of this measure.
According to the Co-Sponsors, since the mid-1950s, California has
required that dogs be licensed by the time they are four months of
age and owners are obligated to provide proof of anti-rabies
vaccination and they require that the licenses be issued by the
local cities and counties. As important as dog licensing is to
California's local governments and humane agencies - as a way to
recover costs associated with handling stray dogs, as a means for
identifying dogs to owners quickly, and as assurance for public
health related to rabies prevention - statewide dog licensing rates
AB 1939
Page 7
are a dismal 20 percent.
The Co-Sponsors maintain that when the vast majority of dogs are not
licensed, our communities deal with the consequences of hundreds of
thousands of lost dogs every year. "Those consequences are both
fiscal and moral. Taxpayers spend a collective $250 million per
year for local animal services agencies - and that doesn't account
for the tens of millions of philanthropic support to run local
SPCAs, humane societies and non-profit animal rescue groups. And
when lost dogs don't get back to their owners, many of them don't
leave animal shelters alive. Both of these outcomes are tragic and
oftentimes avoidable."
The Co-Sponsors state that the purpose of this bill is to remove some
of the barriers that reduce compliance with the state laws that
requires dog licensing (which is to be done at the local level).
Removing these barriers and increasing licensing would:
a) Get lost dogs home to their owners which results in lower kill
rates in the shelters;
b) Provide local government with access to additional revenues;
c) Provide local governments with ways to recover costs more
quickly.
The Co-Sponsors indicate that this bill would require pet stores,
non-profit animal shelters and rescue organizations, and high-volume
dog breeders in the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San
Diego, and Santa Clara to provide to their local licensing agency a
monthly list of licensing information regarding dogs they have
placed. The local licensing agency may use the data to follow up
with new dog owners to complete the licensing process. This
reporting program in the five counties shall remain in effect until
January 1st, 2018. Any other County may enact a local ordinance
implementing a similar reporting program.
Co-Sponsors additionally explain that this bill would permit cities
and counties to offer a puppy license to puppies under the age of
four months. For cities and counties that choose to offer a puppy
license, they shall offer it for the same fee charged to owners of
altered dogs. A puppy license would be temporary and become
permanent when the owners provide their local licensing agency with
proof of proper rabies documentation (no later than five months of
age).
Co-Sponsors argue that as state and local general revenues have
declined, local animal care and regulation agencies have seen a
AB 1939
Page 8
significant loss of funding - with many agencies losing fifty
percent or more of their revenue and associated staff. The same
economic conditions which have resulted in reduced revenues have
also increased the demand for public services, resulting in higher
intakes. These agencies - if they are to meet the public's demand
to produce better outcomes (more animals leaving alive) - must find
ways to improve other revenue sources to recover their costs.
The Co-Sponsors believe that by requiring dog seller and adoption
agencies to provide contact information of new dog owners to
licensing authorities, information that these entities already
possess can be utilized readily to follow up on licensing compliance
and improve the revenue picture. "While in theory it would be
easier to simply require dog licensing at the time of
purchase/adoption, the fact that California has more than 400
licensing jurisdictions - each with different fee schedules and
forms - renders this option untenable. While not required by AB
1939 to make use of this information, we anticipate that local
jurisdictions will not only be anxious to utilize it, but that they
will work together to identify ways to share the information they
receive with one another so that information about dogs
purchased/adopted in one jurisdiction ends up in the possession of
the agency with the authority to follow up on compliance.
The Co-Sponsors further believe that this information will yield far
greater returns to local jurisdictions if puppies can be identified
and licensed closer to the time they are sold. "As it stands,
licenses can only be issued upon proof of rabies vaccination - an
immunization that cannot be given until the dog reaches four months
of age. However, most puppies are sold between two and three months
of age. It's at the time of purchase/adoption that most pet owners
are likely to take care of basics like identification and licensing
and so it makes sense to offer cities and counties a pathway to this
by amending the state law in a way that clarifies the process for
puppy licensing should they elect to offer it. Several
jurisdictions already offer puppy licensing even though they're
violating state law to do so - and they are reaping the rewards of
higher identification rates and longer-term revenue associated with
annual licensing renewal of those dogs. (For example, the
Co-Sponsors point out that reports similar to the monthly licensing
reports required in this measure have generated over $500,000
annually for the City of San Jose.)
2.Background. California state law requires that all dogs over the
age of four months be vaccinated against rabies and possess a
license. Licensing is a means of identification in the event that a
AB 1939
Page 9
dog becomes lost. Licensing revenues aid licensing entities in
promoting and protecting human and animal safety. Failure to
license one's dog may result in fines, penalties and/or citations.
According to data from the American Veterinary Medical Association,
California itself has approximately 9.3 million dogs. Approximately
715,000 dogs die each year in California. In 2008, about 1,900,000
dogs were licensed with the possibility of under-reporting.
According to information provided by the Sponsors, 80% of dogs in
shelters have an owner, but only 16-20% are returned to their owners
because of licensing. Low rates of licensing compliance also
results in lower revenue for local governments.
According to the American Humane Association Web site, it is
generally safe to spay or neuter most puppies at 8 weeks of age.
Once a dog is spayed or neutered, it may qualify for the fee
discount pursuant to FAC §§ 30525, 30804.5 and GC § 38792 of
one-half, or less of the fee required for a dog.
This bill does not require vaccination as a pre-requisite to
licensing; however, owners must still vaccinate the puppy when it
reaches 4 months of age. If the owner has not provided acceptable
proof when the puppy reaches five months of age that the puppy has
received an anti-rabies vaccination, the puppy license shall expire
until the issuing agency receives satisfactory evidence indicating
the puppy has received vaccination.
After one year, puppies are considered adults. This bill provides
that the puppy license shall expire when the puppy reaches one year
of age and upon expiration of this license, the owner must obtain a
regular dog license.
3.Current Declines in Dog Licensing and Licensing Compliance.
According to the California Department of Public Health, the past
three decades have seen a sharp decline in the number of California
dogs licensed per 1000 people. In 1996-97 Los Angeles Animal
Services saw 137,000 animals licensed which shrank to 125,000 in
2006-2007. Additional information reveals that in 2009, only 16% of
California's dogs were licensed. Supporters contend that by
permitting licensing and education when a dog is still a puppy,
licensing compliance will go up.
The Los Angeles Animal Services had a different method of improving
compliance by implementing their License Canvassing program, which
utilized employees in a canvassing effort, following up on breeding
AB 1939
Page 10
permits. They saw positive results in increasing compliance,
bringing in 6,500 licenses and $282,000 in revenue.
4. Current Reporting Requirements for Pet Dealers. Much of the
existing reporting for pet dealers requirements are established
in the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (Act). Apart from
setting forth definitions for pet dealers and purchasers, the Act
sets forth guidelines for the health and safety of dogs and cats.
The Act also sets forth information pet dealers shall provide to
purchasers, including information on disease, illness, and any
congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the
health of the dog at the time of sale. It also provides for a
civil penalty of $1,000 per violation of the Act.
Pet dealers are also required to provide a basic standard of living
for dogs and sets forth provisions addressing dog illness after
purchase regarding refunds and veterinary costs. Pet dealers are
also required to provide the purchaser at the time of sale, a
written notice of rights upon request setting forth rights provided
for in the Act.
5. Measure May Decrease Euthanasia for Shelter Dogs. A key
concern of some animal groups is the number of dogs that are
euthanized when they are not reclaimed by owners, transferred,
adopted, or die of natural causes in shelters. They believe that
euthanasia of dogs would decrease if more owners are reunited
with dogs in shelters through increased licensing efforts.
According to information from the California Department of Public
Health, 35% of shelter dogs are euthanized, 16% are reclaimed by
owners and 27% are adopted. Increasing licensing tools for local
governmental entities may improve the percentage of dogs reclaimed
by owners from shelters. According to the California Department of
Public Health, if there is a 10% increase in the rate at which lost
dogs are returned to owners, the chance that they are euthanized
goes down by roughly 5-20%.
6. Related Legislation. AB 1121 (Pan) of 2011, is a bill which
was similar to this measure and passed out of this Committee by a
vote of 6 to 1. It was however vetoed by the Governor with the
following veto message:
"I am returning Assembly Bill 1121 without my signature. Nothing in
existing law prevents local governments from issuing puppy licenses
or imposing requirements on dog sellers. In fact, some cities and
counties have already adopted excellent programs of the kind
AB 1939
Page 11
envisioned by this bill. Licensing and tracking of dogs is
quintessentially a local function."
AB 258 (Hagman) of 2011, exempts from the rabies vaccination
requirement a dog that a licensed veterinarian determines, on an
annual basis, would be endangered from the vaccine due to disease or
other conditions. This bill is pending before the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SCR 51 (Lieu) of 2011, declares July 7, 2011 to be Microchip Your
Animal Day 2011 in California and would request that Californians
observe this day by having their dogs and cats microchipped and by
supporting organizations that provide no-cost and affordable
microchipping services. This resolution is pending before the
Senate Rules Committee.
SB 702 (Lieu) of 2011, prohibits any public animal control agency or
shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter,
humane society shelter, or rescue group from releasing to an owner
seeking to reclaim his or her dog or cat, or selling or giving away
to a new owner, a dog or cat that has not been microchipped, except
under a specified circumstance. Because a violation of these
provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program. This bill is pending before the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 2716 (Mendoza) of 2010, provided for a reduced fee for a dog
license tag if a certificate was presented from a licensed
veterinarian stating that the dog is a puppy under the age of 8
months. By expanding the population of dogs eligible for a reduced
license fee, the bill would have imposed a state-mandated local
program on a local government which would administer the expanded
program. This measure was referred to the Assembly Committee on
Local Government but was never heard.
SB 250 (Florez) of 2010, restricted the ownership of unsterilized
dogs and cats and required surgical sterilization of the animal in
specified circumstances. This bill died on the Assembly Floor.
AB 1634 (Levine) of 2008, enacted the California Responsible Pet
Ownership Act which specifies that a person who owns a dog or cat
that is not licensed (or is improperly licensed) and that has not
been spayed or neutered may be cited, and if cited, must pay civil
penalties. It also increased existing fines for nonspayed or
unneutered dogs and cats. This bill required microchipping of the
animal for a second occurrence for which the owner would have to pay
AB 1939
Page 12
the cost of the microchip procedure, as specified. This bill died
on the Senate Floor.
SB 861 (Speier, Chapter 668, Statutes of 2005) allows cities and
counties to pass specified breed-specific legislation for mandatory
spaying and neutering and breeding restrictions. This bill provides
for increased reporting to the State Public Health Veterinarian of
dog bite data and other information by local jurisdictions that
makes use of the authorization provided by the bill.
SB 934 (Vincent) of 2005, provided that the entity selling or giving
away of an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat shall require the
adopter or purchaser to execute a written agreement acknowledging
that the dog or cat is not spayed or neutered and agreeing that the
adopter or purchaser shall be responsible for ensuring that the dog
or cat will be spayed or neutered, as specified. The bill would
have subject a purchaser or adopter who violates the agreement to
spay or neuter to specified civil fines and penalties. Because the
bill increased the duties of local humane officers, this bill would
have imposed a state-mandated local program upon local governments.
This measure was referred to the Senate Business, Professions and
Economic Development Committee but was never heard.
SB 1301 (Vincent, Chapter 253, Statutes of 2004) repeals the sunset
date of January 1, 2006, for statutory provisions effective January
1, 2000, relating to the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats.
SB 1785 (Hayden, Chapter 752, Statutes of 1998) provides that public
and private animal shelters are subject to the same anti-cruelty
statues as private citizens who take possession of a stray dog or
cat and requires animal shelters to keep animals for a minimum of
three business days before they are put up for adoption and a
minimum of six business days before they are euthanized among other
provisions.
7.Arguments in Support. The Animal Control Directors Association
(ACDA) is in support of this bill and points out that dog licensing
is a system that was developed to monitor rabies compliance,
beginning when a dog reaches the age of 4 months and can be
vaccinated against rabies. There are no provisions within the
existing law that clearly allow licensing authorities to provide
discounts or incentives for puppies. The ADCA believes that this
measure would provide local jurisdictions an extra option for puppy
licensing and the opportunity to increase license revenues by
allowing a discounted fee in the first year. The ACDA also believe
that the monthly reporting of information by animal rescue groups,
AB 1939
Page 13
local Humane Societies, pet stores and pet dealers of all dogs they
sell or adopt and the new owner information can be used by the
licensing authority to ensure compliance with existing licensing and
rabies laws. "This information will enable local agencies to
dramatically increase licensing revenues which help to offset the
cost to provide required animal control services."
The County of Sacramento and the City of San Jose are in support and
believe that this measure will give the County and City needed
opportunities to provide animal care services to the public more
efficiently and to offset the cost of providing the services with
license fees. It will provide the County and City with more options
to ensure the dogs are licensed and that the licenses are renewed,
and would provide information about dogs sold or adopted on a more
regular bases so that the County and City will be able to provide
new dog owners with information about how to comply with existing
licensing and rabies requirements. "Another benefit is that this
information would enable local governments to contact owners if
their dog ends up in a shelter to facilitate reuniting the dog with
its owner more quickly than we are able to do now.
8.Arguments in Opposition. The City of Los Angeles (City) is opposes
this measure based on an action of the City Council. The three
primary reasons for the City Council's action are:
(1) The bill effectively allows the dismantling of
state-authorized "differential dog licensing" programs in the
five most populous counties in California. Differential
licensing provides a powerful incentive for spaying or
neutering dogs by authorizing local jurisdictions to charge at
least twice as much for an intact dog license as it does for
sterilized dog licenses. This program has been very successful
in Los Angeles and substituting a one-size fits all approach
for dogs prior to their first birthday essentially incentives
breeding that could further contribute to pet overpopulation in
the state's urbanized areas.
(2) The bill recommends implementation of a "puppy license" to
replace differential licensing, an act which promises to reduce
revenues to local jurisdictions at the same time it could
increase costs by facilitating the birth of more unwanted pets.
(3) The imposes an information reporting requirement on
nonprofit rescue and adoption organizations statewide that is
likely to prove burdensome and which is accompanies by fines
for violations. This combination could service to drive some
AB 1939
Page 14
of the state's most passionate pet adoption advocates out of
the field at a time when they're vitally needed to help
underfunded animal control agencies save the lives of more
animals.
The City believes that the mechanisms that this measure employs
will, on balance, be detrimental to California's efforts to combat
irresponsible pet ownership and high levels of pet euthanasia in
public animal shelters.
The City of Long Beach (City) is also opposed and believes the bill
will create conflicting reporting requirements for animal transfers
within the City, in addition to a new layer of temporary licensing
options. "The City believes the proposed regulations (sic) would
complicate existing local laws that currently address animal
licensing in a consistent and coordinated manner." The City is
concerned that the reporting requirements excludes what it calls
"backyard breeders" and is unnecessary in the City, as its municipal
code provides for a more comprehensive reporting requirements. (The
City requires that every person who owns, operates or maintains a
location where dogs . . . or other domestic pets are legally sold by
of kept for sale, to report specified information on forms provided
by the City, and that the report is submitted no late than 10 days
from the date of transfer.) The City indicates that it boasts a dog
licensing rate above the State average. Over 35 percent of dogs in
Long Beach are licensed, and the City continually engages in
educational opportunities to encourage additional licensing. Online
licensing and increased locations at low cost clinics that rotate to
various parts of the City have been effective tools for the City,
"and would become complicated by pilot program regulations in AB
1939."
The State Humane Association of California (SHAC) is opposed to the
requirements of this measure, and in particular the requirement that
humane societies and SPCAs submit a monthly report to animal control
containing the name, address, and telephone number of every person
who adopts a dog. "For humane societies and SPCAs, their adopter
lists are trade secret, conferring independent economic value on the
organizations. If SPCAs and humane societies are forced to
surrender adopter lists to local government, they face the risk that
the information will be misappropriated. We are aware of one SPCA
that recently provided its adopter list to its local animal control
agency to help facilitate an increase in licensing revenue.
Unfortunately, this gesture of goodwill turned into an opportunity
for the animal control agency to solicit donations on its own
behalf. "Although the bill does contain language that restricts the
AB 1939
Page 15
use, distribution, and release of the list to ensure compliance with
state and local laws, including applicable licensing requirements
and regulations, SHAC does not believe it provides adequate
safeguards for the protection of this valuable information.
Moreover, absent from this bill is a penalty for unauthorized use of
the adopter information.
SHAC is also opposed to the fine for failure to report. The
reporting requirement amounts to a mandate for SPCAs and humane
societies for which they would receive no reimbursement from local
government. However, if they fail to report, they would be subject
to a fine. Although SHAC generally supports the concept of AB 1939
and understands that adopter information may be instrumental in
generating additional licensing revenue, SHAC believes that
reporting for humane societies and SPCAs should be voluntary because
of its concerns about the use of the information and the fine.
Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL) is opposed and joins with
the State Humane Association, SPCA LA, and other SPCA's and rescue
groups throughout the state in opposition to this bill. Although
SCIL agrees with the intention of increasing the number of licensed
dogs in the state of California, they believe this bill will only
negatively affect the licensing by lowering the fees coming into
local jurisdictions and promoting more unaltered pets. "While
California is euthanizing over a half million pets in our shelters
each year and spending almost $300 million on animal control, this
is the wrong direction." SCIL indicates that it opposes this bill
for the following reasons:
(1) Similar to comments of the Governor, SCIL believes that
every jurisdiction may want to handle their fee structure
differently so this should be left up to the local jurisdiction
to decide how to incentivize dog licensing in their local
communities. For example, Orange County already has a "puppy
license" which provides for a discount on a license fee until
the dog is 6 months of age. Also, the City of Los Angeles
already has a four-month "puppy certificate," and it's free.
(2) SCIL is concerned that giving a dog a year for the
discounted license is TOO long. A dog can have up to two
litters in one year, which conflicts with the intent of
existing law. Existing law is meant to encourage dog owners to
spay and neuter their dogs as soon as they reach 4 months of
age. SCIL is worried that this is the first step toward
breaking down this very successful differential licensing law
on the books and there are other alternatives for local
governments to incentivize pet owners to license their animals.
AB 1939
Page 16
(3) SCIL agrees with the reporting requirements in concept,
however, in this distressed economy it appears to put an undue
burden on small businesses as well as local rescue groups and
ASPCAs. Even worse, as argued by SCIL, this bill does not seem
to include the "hobby breeder," which coincidentally are more
common in California than rescue shelters. "Not only does this
make the code discriminatory, AB 1939 might very well result in
LESS animals being adopted in shelters and more through
unregulated hobby breeders!" Furthermore, as SCIL argues,
existing law is supportive of reducing the number of unwanted
animals through spay and neuter programs. "The only appeal of
a puppy license, which this bill proposes, is to a pet owner
who is considering breeding an animal."
9.Policy Issue : Would Receiving Information on Dogs Sold and Adopted
be Useful Information for Local Jurisdictions? Many of the animal
organizations and groups responding to this measure seem to indicate
that receiving this information could possibly be useful for local
animal control and local jurisdictions for purposes of licensing
dogs. It should be recognized that this is considered to be a pilot
program for several counties throughout the state and as such its
purpose is to determine if receiving information about dogs which
are sold or adopted would increase the ability for local
jurisdictions to obtain an increase in licensing of dogs and also
generate increased revenue. At least for the City of San Jose this
appears to be the case, as well as for the City of Long Beach.
Concerns, however, have been raised by the State Humane Association,
SPCAs and others regarding the potential use and misuse of the
information provided by these non-profit organizations to local
animal control/shelters which includes the name and addresses of
those who have for adopted animals and are considered to be
potential donors to these organizations. The Sponsors indicate that
the language in the bill and protections to this information
provided would seem sufficient to prevent the use of this
information by a local shelter to use in an effort to raise money or
to use as a their own donor list. The example given by the State
Humane Association is one where there were no legal protections
provided such as in this measure. Also, Sponsors also raise the
question of whether there is a direct connection to those who
actually adopt dogs from these organizations and then become
potential donors.
10.Policy Issue: Would Providing the Option to Obtain a "Puppy
License" Potentially Increase the Licensing of Dogs in Local
AB 1939
Page 17
Jurisdictions? This bill would permit cities and counties to offer
puppy licenses for dogs under one year of age. If the local agency
opts to offer puppy licensing, then that city or county would be
required to follow the provisions of the bill, which contain the
process for the licensing. For cities and counties that choose to
offer a puppy license, the bill requires the local government to
offer it for the same fee charged to owners of altered dogs. A
puppy license would be temporary and become permanent only when the
owners provide their local licensing agency with proof of proper
rabies documentation (no later than five months of age).
The problem pointed out by opponents of this measure relate more to
the use of the differential fee now provided as an incentive for an
owner to spay and neuter their dog, then to providing a puppy
license. As a matter of fact, it appears that there are several
other local jurisdictions that have actually adopted the concept of
providing a puppy license with some success. The opponents,
however, may have a point. It would seem that one of the major
considerations for local jurisdictions is trying to provide whatever
incentives are possible so that owners will have their dogs spayed
or neutered. Opponents argue that by requiring the specified
jurisdictions of this pilot program to offer the same fee for a
puppy license that is offered for a spay or neutered dog ("one-half
or less of the fee required for dog tag") that this would provide a
disincentive for owners to get there dog spayed or neutered sooner
rather than later (possibly after one year since that is how long
the puppy license would be in effect).
The Author may want to consider rather than tying the puppy license to
the spay and neuter fee, that the local jurisdiction be given the
ability to provide a "discounted rate" that would be maybe higher
than the spayed or neutered fee but obviously lower than the normal
dog tag fee. If an owner obtained a puppy license and then had
their puppy spayed or neutered (within the one year), then they
should get the lowest fee possible ; maybe a rebate on the puppy
license fee once they had their puppy spayed or neutered or a
discounted fee in the future. Would suggest the Author consider the
following amendment:
On page 5, strike lines 27 and 28, and insert: " be offered at a
discounted rate. "
11.Policy Issue : Should Local Jurisdictions That Currently Have Puppy
Licensing Programs or Reporting Requirements Be Exempted? The
Author may want to consider grandfathering any of the local
jurisdictions that have current programs that offer a puppy license
AB 1939
Page 18
at a discounted fee or that may have specified reporting
requirements for the sale or adoption of animals. As indicated by
the City of Long Beach, they appear to have a successful program for
the reporting of dogs which are sold or adopted. It has also been
indicated that other local jurisdictions also have a puppy licensing
programs in place.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
Concerned Dog Owners of California (Sponsor)
Humane Society of the United States (Sponsor)
California Animal Control Directors Association
City of San Jose
County of Sacramento
Neutral :
California Retailers Association
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Opposition:
Animal Council
California Federation of Dog Clubs
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
Humane Society Silicon Valley
Inland Valley Humane Society & SPCA
PawPAC
Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA
San Diego Humane Society and SPCA
Social Compassion in Legislation
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles
SPCA for Monterey County
State Humane Association of California
Take Me Home
Consultant:Bill Gage
AB 1939
Page 19